C112 Theorist Critique Assignment

Perhaps it is in this controversial statement that the weakness of the enforced multiculturalistic history suggested comes to light. A single unified nation or people will always have more influence, more power, and more ambition; in a world driven by these means that may well be all that matters. Loewen argues that history ought be rewritten to suit factual information rather than be trimmed to the victor’s standard, but this would do nothing except encourage passiveness and submissive behavior. America, the whole nation, has gone through many struggles with others, but also within our own borders. Our struggles have led to us becoming the world's largest military power enhanced by our national rights to strive to be the very best.

Neorealism relates to European integration most specifically in terms of the aforementioned balance of power. Nations tend to balance among dominant powers rather than ally with them because they “fear that the powerful ally of today could become the menacing rival of tomorrow” (Collard-Wexler, 2006). This balance, however, should not be confused with cooperation because

The United States “regular[ly] resort[s] to war” on the foundation of a “militant foreign policy,” which is associated with a “hegemonic national identity.”3 According to Hixson, the militancy of foreign policy stems from western Europe whose “colonialism and imperialism…flowed from the aggressive expansion of a…worldview that apotheosized its way of life as ordered, reasoned and providentially

The United States from the Cold War and into the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) continues to face challenges in translating military might into political desires due to its obsession with raising an army, electing politicians and assembling a diplomatic corp that continue to gravitate towards State-to-State engagements that if not rectified could lead to substantial delays in fighting terrorism and non-terrorist adversaries or worse total failure of the United States Military’s ability to properly carry out it’s politicians objectives due to being blindsided.

Samuel Huntington’s controversial article “The Clash of Civilizations?” was first published in Foreign Affairs in 1993 and was subsequently turned into a book in 1996 titled The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. As this paper will show Huntington’s work can be seen as a product of the post-Cold War context it was written in. Huntington’s article takes a new perspective on the new world order and outlines a different way a thinking about how future world conflicts will unfold. Since the initial journal article was published in 1993 there has been a great deal of response from academics and also from Huntington himself. A majority of the responses come in the form of critiques, with the authors offering their own insight into how the post-Cold War World will operate. Although the validity of Huntington’s arguments have been questioned, it did create a great deal of controversy in the academic world. As Huntington explained in the preface of his 1996 book, the original article published in Foreign Affairs created more discussion in three years than any other article published in the journal since the 1940s.

Friedman explains the diplomacy of the twenty-first century in the following: "The world has become an increasingly, interwoven place, and today, whether you are a company or a country, your threats and opportunities increasingly derive from who you are connected to" (392). Ever since the invention of such advanced systems, it has indeed become easier to enforce power and priority over individuals and nations of lesser power, and it is now possible to engage in war against powerful rivals to a horrific degree. The consistent and credible threat of a nuclear warfare is not too difficult to uphold, despite the distance or the size of the nation. Friedman also mentions the rise of new superpowers such as the global market thanks to the Internet, an easy accessible network with the entire world. With the global market, any company or individual who utilizes this invention is able to easily manipulate the flow of the economy very similarly to how a nation does. Therefore, the potential of a smaller group of people or even an individual can match that of an entire nation. His closing remark introduces a fate which discourages the presence of security which the United States, a nation which gained its independence and security from other national

Imperialism has been one of the most powerful forces in human history, serving to set the foundation of our modern world. While this has led to the formation of a global society where cultures, ideas, and innovations are spread across countries, imperialism has also left a history of exploitation, racism, and violence that is still affecting the world today. Imperial relationships are always imbalanced when it comes to power and influence; that is, one group (known as the metropole) maintains authority and control over another group (known as the periphery) with economic, political, and cultural dominance (Spiegel 2012). There are many reasons why one group chooses to dominate the other, such as expanding territory, extracting raw resources to fuel economic development, or to spread their beliefs (i.e. religion) (Spiegel 2012). In spite of these varied reasons, one of the main motivators for imperialism began with competition between empires.

Recently, and especially since the 1990s, a popular conception of the world is that the age of empires and superpowers is waning, rapidly being replaced by a kind of global community made up of interdependent states and deeply connected through economics and technology. In this view, the United States' role following the Cold War is one of almost benign preeminence, in which it seeks to spread liberal democracy through economic globalization, and, failing that, military intervention. Even then, however, this military intervention is framed as part of a globalizing process, rather than any kind of unilateral imperialist endeavor. However, examining the history of the United States since nearly its inception all the way up to today reveals that nothing could be farther from the truth. The United States is an empire in the truest sense of the word, expanding its control through military force with seemingly no end other than its own enrichment. The United States' misadventure in Iraq puts the lie to the notion that US economic and military action is geared towards any kind of global progression towards liberal democracy, and forces one to re-imagine the United States' role in contemporary global affairs by recognizing the way in which it has attempted to secure its own hegemony by crippling any potential threats.

The era of globalization has witnessed the growing influence of a number of unconventional international actors, from non-governmental organizations, to multi-national corporations, to global political movements. Traditional, state-centric definitions of foreign policy as "the policy of a sovereign state in its interaction with other sovereign states is no longer sufficient. Several alternative definitions are more helpful at highlighting aspects of foreign policy

SITUATION ANALYSIS – THREATS . . . . . . . . . . PG 9-10

Stuart Hall’s work introduces readers to the discourse of “the West and the Rest”, and outlines how the “system of representation” it provides serves to validate the power of the Western world (186). He highlights how the dissemination of discourse about Western superiority and the comparative “otherness” of the non-Western world work to maintain power hierarchies. Hall pinpoints several historical events, from the Crusades to colonisation, as instrumental in forming a Western identity through opposition to “the

Samuel Huntington sees an emerging world organized on the basis of "civilizations". Societies that share cultural affinities cooperate with each other and the efforts to force a society into another civilization will fail; countries gather around the leading States of their civilization. This description of the process of new structures of international relations that Huntington sees developing, leads him to consider that the greatest risks of violence and confrontation lie in the Westerns’ claims to universality, which are leading them to increasingly get into conflict with other civilizations, particularly Islam and China; local conflicts, especially between Muslims and non-Muslims, generate new alliances and lead to an escalation of violence, which will usually lead the dominant states to make an attempt to stop them.

Leonard Binder states, "Most observers see little good coming out of an ethnic narcissism that conduces to the demonization of the other." (p. 6) These conflicts often escalate to the point where the original crisis fades into the background, and the participants lose sight of it altogether. Each group believes that when one gains, the other loses automatically. Similarly, when one group compromises, it is also a loss. This is particularly difficult when religion is involved because groups will not compromise their beliefs and ethnic loyalties are very strong. Additionally, nation-states include ethnic strategies into their government, foreign policy, and politics in general. (Binder 8)

The traditional security paradigm is focused on physical and external security threats to states. It promotes that security should be state centred and national security is primary over other securities, such as human security. States must defend their territory and authority from external, foreign threats, by physical means, such as increasing the military or

Previously, I perceived our opponents to be the “bad guys” and the United States to be the heroes that were helping people around the world. While this may be true in some applications, I’m no longer naïve to the fact that the U.S. isn’t handing out millions of dollars in economic interest simply because it’s the right thing to do. Rather, I believe that most military conflicts the U.S. has engaged in over the last century, as well as the current battles in Syria and throughout the Middle East, stem principally from economic motivations. While I’m undecided in the political debate that exists between political parties over the term imperialism itself, I’ve become keenly aware of how much of our country’s foreign policy is driven by the economic needs of its citizens. The profound change I’ve experienced is in remaining mindful as to the influence on foreign policy that receptive markets and favorable political conditions in countries throughout the world has.